It's the kids killing time

Page Tools

Once abstract ... there are fears that younger children are being exposed to overly sadistic games.Photo: Rob Homer

Many parents are unaware of the level of violence in the games their children play, writes Steve Meacham.

It's an horrific symbol of what constitutes children's play in the modern era, says Dr Cathrine Neilsen-Hewett. "I've seen five-year-old children who can sit at a computer console and quite skilfully and easily decapitate a human being." last year (on Anderson's website: http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/). Minerva Psichiatrica

Neilsen-Hewett, a lecturer in child development at Macquarie University, is commenting about a Newspoll survey to be published this week, which shows that Australian parents, like their overseas counterparts, are becoming increasingly concerned about the rising level of violence in children's toys and computer games.

The poll, the first of its kind specifically aimed at Australian parents of children under the age of nine, was commissioned by the British-based educational toy retailer Early Learning Centre. It found that 57.1 per cent of parents questioned believed their children demonstrated aggressive behaviour after playing with violent toys.

But what Neilsen-Hewett found most worrying about the poll was the 36 per cent of parents who weren't concerned about the violent games. "That's very disturbing. All the research clearly shows that these violent games do have an effect on child behaviour. For example, children who play them tend to be less caring, less helpful towards their parents. They also tend to have a low frustration tolerance - in other words, a lack of patience because in the games they play they get immediate gratification. That is translated into children's real-life behaviour."

According to Neilsen-Hewett, parents who fail to recognise the problem do so for two reasons. "Either they are not aware of the negative effect that such games can have on child behaviour, or they're not aware of the level of violence involved in the games. It's not that parents don't care. Often it is simply because they do not know the facts."

A leading expert in this field is Professor Craig Anderson of Iowa State University. Parents wishing to review the evidence of the link between violent games and aggressive behaviour can read the article he and his colleague, Nicholas Carnagey, wrote for

In it, they document recent research showing the correlation between viewing violent television and aggression "is greater than the correlations of being exposed to asbestos and contracting laryngeal cancer, consuming calcium and increased bone mass, or wearing a condom and not contacting HIV".

If that's true of violent TV, they argue, how much more potent is the relationship between violent games - given that watching TV is a passive entertainment, whereas a computer game involves participation? Yet there has been relatively little research done.

One of the problems is that the video-game industry has grown into a multibillion-dollar business. Another is the fact that violence sells. In the early 1990s, Sega and Nintendo released home-console versions of the popular arcade game Mortal Kombat. Nintendo sanitised its version, "removing the most graphically violent features, depictions of blood and the worst of the fatal moves". Sega released an uncensored version - and outsold their rivals "three to one".

Most parents, argue the Iowa academics, don't realise we are living in "the third era of the computer game". First came "the Atari era, 1977-85" where there was little violence. Then came "the Nintendo era, 1985-95" in which the violence in the games rapidly increased as manufacturers recognised violent games sold well.

The third era is dominated by the Sony PlayStation. The problem isn't just the level of violence in the games, but the more realistic depictions of it coupled with the longer time children spend playing them.

In Australia, says Neilsen-Hewett, parents associate video violence with amusement arcades. Not so. The games children play at home - on their computers, TVs or hand-held devices - are often as bad. And don't think for a minute that only older children are seduced by computer games - the average time an Australian boy of 7-9 spends playing computer games is about 13 hours a week, compared with five hours a week for girls of the same age.

According to Carnagey and Anderson, "there is a large discrepancy between what the video game industry considers violent as compared with the public".

The disagreements don't end there. Beverly Jenkin, head of the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia, which represents the computer video game industry, says "no validated, appropriate research to date" has established a definite link between computer games and increased aggressive behaviour in children.

"I am a parent myself and I think it is very important that parents take an active interest in all aspects of their child's development."

Unlike the US or Britain, Australia has a mandatory rating system for video games through the Office of Film and Literature Classification. "Seventy-five per cent of games that are classified in Australia are rated G or PG, despite the fact that 70 per cent of video game players are over 18."

Associate professor Jeff Brand of Bond University agrees that enough research has been done into the use of computer games by children, arguing Anderson's research is inappropriate because it involves university students in a laboratory setting.

The most authoritative research involving Australian players, says Brand, indicated most people found such games "provided a positive experience of entertainment and fun". The key question, says Brand, should be directed at parents: do you know what games your children are playing?

Mike Lewis, the chief executive of Early Learning Centre in Australia, says he commissioned the Newspoll, because "we wanted to check whether some of the assumptions on which we built the business 30 years ago in England were still true of Australia."

Lewis employed Neilsen-Hewett to interpret the findings of the poll. She says there is a substantial difference between how children are affected by computer games and toy weaponry (such as replica guns and swords) and TV and movies, which are monitored by professional adults - albeit in a TV studio or a film licensing board.

"Games do have ratings in terms of age suitability," Neilsen-Hewitt admits, but parents tend to confuse technical ability with emotional maturity. "They say, 'My child is clever. My child can cope with a game pitched at an older age group.' They see it as a question of skill level rather than the appropriateness of the material. There has not been the same attention to educating parents about video games as there has been with other forms of entertainment media."

And Neilsen-Hewett says anecdotal evidence at least indicates "children who have older siblings are introduced to violent games and toys at a younger age. In any household, entertainment is governed by the older child."

Nor is the problem of violent influences confined to computer games. According to Neilsen-Hewett, such "traditional" toys as guns and swords have a similar effect. "Research shows that replica weapons stimulate children to play more aggressively."

The result, she says, is an increasing desensitisation to violence, manifested most obviously in the playground "bystander syndrome", where children will allow peers to bully other children without intervening, or telling their teacher. Yes, she admits, children will play cowboys and Indians anyway, but "when they make the weapons for themselves, by pointing a finger or using blocks, it results in less stressful behaviour".

Why? Well, the younger the child, the more difficulty he/she has in differentiating between fiction and reality. "An adult will play a game for pleasure, as an escape from tension, as a break from work, and walk away and say, 'This wouldn't be appropriate behaviour in my real life'. A young child cannot make that distinction."